[antispam-f] Re: SecureSockets
- From: Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:14:26 +0100
In article <57831b2605freelists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Martin <freelists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not have the SS module, but I am aware it has a slightly
confusing history. Is it possible the module is slightly different? A
hex dump of the start of the module, including the Help string, might
clarify?
The same module seems to be correctly identified later.
Another possibility is that the compare is done using VAL - was there
a BASIC FP change that could affect that (by being out by very small
amounts)?
Again, the same procedure using the same BASIC finds the module after
the initial failure. Makes no sense to me.
Unless the locations and names Harriet mentioned are indeed the only
ones. Then AS really won't be able to find the module. After that,
something else loads the module and a click on the Module? button makes
AS check again and, yes, it's there. Same after AS is restarted. The
only thing that's wrong with that theory is:
So what happens when you load the module manually by double clicking
the file and then run AntiSpam?
No difference. It doesn't work until I 'load' the module from within
AntiSpam by clicking on the 'Module' button.
Because then *that* makes no sense.
Unless Harriet misunderstood and didn't *(re)start* AS after manually
loading the module... My 'run' may have been unclear in this context.
Regards,
Frank
Other related posts:
